mgo.licio.us

"The face of the operation is Briatore (referred to exclusively in the film by his colleagues and angry, chanting detractors as "Flavio"), an anthropomorphic radish who spends most of his time at QPR plotting to fire all of the managers."

At press time, Harbaugh had sent Michigan’s athletic department an envelope containing a heavily annotated seating chart, a list of the 63,000 seat views he had found unsatisfactory, and a glowing 70-page report on section 25, row 12, seat 9, which he claimed is “exactly what the great sport of football is all about.”

I don't think there is a specific formula that they use in the NCAA handbook, although they do make it clear in Bylaw 16 that you could be asked to pay the full amount potentially. The fact that they considered this a secondary violation also means that they did not find the "impermissible benefit" here to be "significant" (the word in the handbook). In Bylaw 13, boosters are among those prohibited from providing offers or inducements not sanctioned by the NCAA (some of this sounds like per diem expenses, on which there is a definite cap).

"Funny isn't it, how naughty dentists always make that one fatal mistake."

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Perea getting "illegal benefits", which were basic living expenses, from his legal guardian. Hard to tell what his actual relationship is with Jurkin though from the article

It's really a slippery slope. I mean... $185 over 7 years that a dude's ex wife used to buy bumper stickers? That's 9 games for each player and $1500 they must repay because their legal guardian bought them coats when they moved to northern Indiana.

I realize this doesn't equate, but I just donated a comparable amount of money to a kickstarter sponsored by Martavious Odoms that had his history as a Michigan player in the request text. I donated the money specifically because I admired the way Martavious represented the University during some trying times. Does this mean I couldn't direct my kid to play for UM?

It's a ridiculous thought, certainly, but after watching this university get pounded for stretching after a witch hunt by a newspaper looking for subscriptions, and seeing two kids getting benched 9 games each because a foundation bought them a coat and the leader happened to pay 185 bucks to a school the kids committed to I'm beginning to wonder what where the absurd line is drawn.

"This is the EMU game, not the emo game."

As an IU student I'm furious about this. It is saying you can't help kids out even if u are their legal guardians. It makes no sense and was not during any of these kids recruitments and I can't believe the NCAA did this. It seems like an intentional attack on IU.

You don't say? A team comes out of nowhere (they had tradition, no doubt but they haven't been great for a while) to get an incredible recruiting class and you say it is because of payments to student-athletes?!?!?

See: Providence (bball), Clemson (fball), Auburn (fball), UK (bball),

or uh, Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.

read the post/article.This wasn't a bagman deal, hundred dollar handshakes, or even free team gear from visiting prospects.

This was a guy who runs a charity to help African orphans, who once, ages ago, donated $180 total to Indiana athletics, buying coats, shoes, and necessary life essentials for a couple of kids his charity rescued from Africa, while he was their legal guardian.

"This is the EMU game, not the emo game."

I am blown away by how petty the NCAA looks in all this. Some years ago, I donated a large sum of money to the University of Michigan. In return, I was given a very exclusive gift. What I gave was tuition and they gave me a degree. I'd better hope my child never wants to play sports at Michigan or there will be sanctions...

Your degree is not a gift. You did not buy it, and you did not donate anything in exchange for it. You bought the opportunity to learn something from an institution full of experts in various fields that would, in exchange, credential you, if and only if you were successful in learning enough about one or more of those fields.

I mean, if your version were right, wouldn't Tate have a degree?

That said, don't all alumni count as boosters according to the NCAA? I can't buy Michigan tickets for teams I coach, because as an alum and student/GSI, I was told by the compliance office that it'd render all of them ineligible.

They cited mitigating circumstances as to why only a percentage. Meaning, they know Perea and Jurkin could have no idea of Adams' "booster" status since the "infractions" happened BEFORE THEY WERE BORN.

How insane is the NCAA?

Basically, they don't like Adams' A-HOPE foundation, but they can't pin anything specific on him or the group, so they are using this minor infraction to lower the boom they wish they could, all at 2 innocent kids' expense. SMH.

I couldn't agree with Blazefire more. Given what's been happening at North Carolina with phantom classes and curriculum, this is not even worth looking at. The way the NCAA spends their time and effort makes no sense. This should have been discussed for 5 seconds and thrown away to spend more time trying to find out who else is actually cheating in college athletics.

Good thing he didn't buy them a bagel with ALL the toppings! What the hell, this is getting out of hand.

At what point does a conference or a group of schools get together and say "we are done with the NCAA." Start a new governing body and just start over. Does the NCAA hold that much power with all of these schools that it can't be done? Are the presidents that blinded by $$$$$ to see the inconsistency that seems to get more comical with each incident?